Senate's divisions hold up arms treaty

Monday

Nov 29, 2010 at 12:01 AMNov 29, 2010 at 12:05 PM

WASHINGTON - The Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty with the old Soviet Union breezed through the Senate in 1972 by a vote of 88-2. The first START pact with the Soviets in 1991 cleared the Senate by a vote of 93-6.

WASHINGTON - The Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty with the old Soviet Union breezed through the Senate in 1972 by a vote of 88-2. The first START pact with the Soviets in 1991 cleared the Senate by a vote of 93-6.

And when President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty in 2002, the Senate gave it a seal of approval by a 95-0 vote.

Less than a decade later, the Obama administration has yet to round up the 67 Senate votes it needs to win approval for what is commonly called the New Start Treaty, an agreement which would continue a three-decade effort by Republican and Democratic presidents to reduce the vast destructive arsenals of the major nuclear powers.

The Senate divisions are clearly on display in Ohio. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, wants President Barack Obama to press the Senate to approve the treaty in a lame-duck congressional session that ends in December.

Sen.-elect Rob Portman, a Republican, wants the vote delayed until he takes office in January. And Sen. George V. Voinovich, R-Ohio, who retires at the end of the year, wants the Senate to wait until he is out of office.

Any delay until January could be fatal to a treaty that has the backing of every former secretary of state still living, as well as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a Republican holdover from the Bush administration.

By January, the Republicans will increase the number of seats they hold to 47, making it highly unlikely that Obama could find the votes to win approval. By scuttling the treaty, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky would deliver a punishing blow to Obama and raise doubts about the future of relations between the U.S. and Russia.

"The stakes are very high," said Heather Conley, a former State Department official under President George W. Bush. "In many respects, the stakes are much greater than this arms-control treaty, which is a fairly modest reduction."

Richard Herrmann, director of the Mershon Center for International Security Studies at Ohio State University and a State Department official under President George H.W. Bush, said if the treaty is not "ratified, it will damage our relations with Russia to some degree."

The treaty requires a 30 percent reduction from the arsenals that each country maintained under the 2002 SORT agreement. Each side would have to reduce their arsenals to 1,550 missiles and bombers and 800 nuclear warheads.

Yet Senate Republicans have responded with myriad objections. They contend that the treaty could impose restrictions on the development of missile defenses, which Gates has publicly dismissed, saying that "anything that we have in mind now or in the years to come that we haven't thought of is not prohibited."

The Republicans warn that they will not approve the pact unless the Obama administration agrees to spend more to upgrade the U.S. nuclear arsenal. This month, the administration promised an additional $4.1 billion during the next five years for modernization, but Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., insists that there are still "complex and unresolved" issues remaining about modernization. Yesterday, he said there are "higher priority items" in the lame-duck session.

Then also this month, Voinovich introduced a new element. In a speech on the Senate floor, he said he would not vote to approve the pact unless the administration's efforts to produce warmer relations with Russia don't come at the expense of eastern European nations such as Poland.

"I cannot in good conscience determine my support for the treaty until the administration assures me our 'Reset Policy' with Russia is a policy that enhances rather than diminishes the national security of our friends and allies throughout Europe," Voinovich said.

Portman and nine other incoming Republican senators followed with a call to delay consideration of the treaty until they take office. In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., the 10 said START "would dramatically reduce the U.S. nuclear deterrent in a strategic environment that is becoming more perilous."

The Republican objections have confounded Democrats and other treaty advocates. They point out that because the old treaty has expired, the U.S. does not have inspectors in Russia to examine the Russian arsenal. And they insist that the U.S. will maintain a powerful nuclear deterrent.

"You're just talking about massive overkill," Herrmann said. "I'm perplexed. No one sees a threat from Russia. I don't know anybody who sees that Russia is about to attack Poland or Germany."

The foreign ministers of a number of European nations, including Latvia, Bulgaria and Norway, have countered Voinovich by insisting that START increases their security. And many analysts believe that rejecting the treaty will result in a deep freeze in relations with Russia.

"The relationship will get a little more difficult if in fact New Start is not ratified," said Conley, now an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "The president has put a great deal of his own credibility on the line.

"But should there be a long-term delay, I think you will see where it will be more difficult to get Russia to help on issues related to Afghanistan and Iran," Conley said.

Perplexed Democrats suggest that Republicans see the treaty as a way to savage Obama, who has been wounded politically by losing control of the House in the November elections.

"If this is all about politics, then Mitch McConnell and his friends should be ashamed of themselves," said Ohio's Brown. "This is too important for American-Russian relations, it's too important to the safety of the country, and it's important to get the Russians to work with us to make sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon."

jtorry@dispatch.com jriskind@dispatch.com

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.